Get Merge Conflicts

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Even with rich annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint), the description adds significant behavioral context: the conflicts are session-bound, the tool only works after a specific merge status, the same MCP server instance must be reused, and resolution is intentionally not exposed. These details go well beyond the structured annotations and inform safe invocation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three dense sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the tool's purpose and output contents, the second establishes read-only intent and limits, and the third provides the required precondition and session-consistency warning. Every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the low complexity (two parameters, no output schema), the description is complete: it summarizes the return contents, states the precondition, discloses the session-bound behavior, and explains the tool's role in the manual resolution workflow. An agent has enough context to select and invoke the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already fully documents projectId and response_format with helpful guidance. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond referring to the overall session context, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get the pending merge conflicts stored in this Studio HTTP session,' and enumerates the exact contents returned (grouped file paths, BASE/OURS/THEIRS revision details, default merge commit message). It also distinguishes this from conflict resolution tools by stating the MCP server intentionally does not expose conflict resolution, making the tool's scope unmistakable.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives an explicit precondition—'Available only after openl_merge_project_branches returns status='conflicts''—and provides an important session-scoped instruction to use the same MCP server instance. It also clarifies the tool is read-only evidence for manual resolution, which implies when not to use it, but it does not name alternative sibling tools such as openl_cancel_merge_conflicts or openl_read_merge_conflict_file.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.